5 

9 



F 685 
.S93 
Copy 1 



KANSAS AFFAIRS. 



SPEECH 




HON. CHAELES E. STUART, 



OF MICHIGAN, 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 9, 1856. 



><r 



The Senate having under consideration the report in favor 
of printing twenty thousand extra copies of the bill to 
enab.e the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a 
constitution- 
Mr. STUART said: 

Mr. President: I have sat here, for six hours 
and more to-day, listening with other Senators 
to a debate on a proposition to print a bill 
which has passed the Senate, and the debate has 
taken a range as wide as the whole creation, not 
to say the subject of slavery. I have, as is 
known to Senators, refrained carefully from any 
discussion on this topic; and whenever I have 
interposed at all during this session, it has been 
to ask Senators to desist. I voted here upon this 
bill silently, not uttering a word, although several 
propositions were made in regard to which I 
should have been glad to explain my votes. I 
trust, under these circumstances, that the Senate 
will indulge me for a few minutes while I present 
some of the reasons which will govern my own 
action here and at home; and at the same time I 
say to some of the gentlemen on the other side 
that I shall present to them some inquiries in 
respect to their votes on this bill which I shall be 
very glad to hear them explain satisfactorily and 
consistently if they can. The subject of slavery 
is one, and perhaps the only one, in respect to 
which good men feel apprehension in regard to 
the safety of the institutions of this country. I 
think I may say that it is the opinion of patriots 
throughout the land, that it is the only question 
which can at any time, so far as we now know, 
seriously endanger the existence of our institu- 
tions. Knowing and believing this, I have not 
only sedulously avoided its discussion here, but 
I have asked others at all proper times to desist 
themselves. 

Now, sir, I propose to present to the considera- 
tion of Senators here the condition that is occu- 
pied by men holding the opinions which I do in 
the northern States, and to contrast that position 
for a moment with the condition of gentlemen 
living in the southern States. Those gentlemen 
represent a constituency all of whose opinions on 



this subject harmonize with their own, and whose 
feelings harmonize with their own. Whenever 
they advocate the interests of slavery, therefore, 
here or at home, they are in concurrence with the 
sentiment, and the reason, and the wishes of their 
people. If they are attacked at home, they are 
attacked by a body of men, as they are now by 
the American party, who insist that they are not 
sufficiently pro-slavery. All they have to do is 
to swim with the tide of public sentiment to make 
themselves popular and strong; while men occu- 
pying the position which I do in the northern 
Stales have to address themselves against the 
feeling of the people ; for whatever gentlemen may 
say to you, Mr. President, the feeling of every 
northern man whom I have ever met is in favor 
of free States, and against the institution of sla- 
very. That is the feehng; and hence, whenever 
we address ourselves to our constituents, we ad- 
dress their reason, their judgment, their patriot- 
ism—we point them to the landmarks and the 
compromises of the Constitution — we say to them 
that they are in honor bound to stand by it, that 
nothing less than the sacrifice of personal honor, 
nothing short of a sacrifice of patriotism itself, 
can induce them to indorse the fanaticism which 
surrounds them. Under these circumstances, I 
apprehend the feelings of a man may be appre- 
ciated whoseesany considerable numberof south- 
ern men, either in Kansas or out of it, furnishing 
to our fanatical opponents the annmunition and 
the weapons with which to destroy us. It was 
for that reason that I said to the Senator from 
Illinois the other day, that, if I were to prescribe 
a sovereign remedy for existing evils in Kansas, 
it would be utter and total silence in the Halls 
of Congress; and I ask the honorable Senator 
here to-day, if he does not believe, and if every 
Senator does not believe, that the discussions in 
Congress at this session have vastly magnified 
the evils existing in that Territory? 

At home, during the last canvass, I took the 
ground, as all other northern Democrats did of 
whom I knew anything, that this subject was left 
bona Jide to tlie people of the Territories to the 



/ /#-r6 



extent that the Constitution could permit it; that 
the Democratic party had come to an understand- 
ing that, so far as the constitutional limits permit- 
ted it, the people of the Territories possessed the 
power to settle this question for themselves during 
the time of their territorial existence. The Sen- 
atorfrom Louisiana, [Mr. Benjamin,] the Senator 
from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] and every other 
Democratic Senator who has spoken on this sub- 
ject here, to my knowledge, states the true 
ground. If the Constitution prohibits Congress 
from exercising the authority — if it prohibits the 
people of the Territory from exercising the au- 
thority, the people of the Territory, under the 
Kansas act, do not possess the authority, because 
Congress did not possess the power under the 
Constitution to confer it; but if the Constitution 
does not of itself prohibit it, the people have it to 
its greatest length and breadth. There is a dif- 
ference of opinion among Democrats on this con- 
stitutional question, and we agreed to leave the 
legislative question in the plainest terms the 
English language could employ, simply reserving 
to any one who chose to do so the right to test it 
before thejudiciaryof the country, and we clothed 
the judiciary in that bill with the express power 
to try and determine the question. 

The people, the Democratic portion of the people 
of the northern country, were satisfied with this 
adjustment. It was attacked, as 1 knew it would 
be — itwas attacked , as I told m y personal and polit- 
ical friends here it would be — violently; and every 
man who was not a Democrat at heart attacked 
it for political purposes to buildup and aggrandize 
a political party that was literally dead under the 
effect of the compromise of 1850. Under that 
attack, great men, and good men, and pure men, 
have fallen, but they have fallen by the standard 
of honor, and by the standard of the Constitution, 
where a man would desire to fall who loves his 
country and respects his name. Eat, sir, those 
men will rise again by the power of a patriotic 
people who never fail to reward political virtue. 

In the execution of this act, in my judgment, 
there has been no fairness at all — none whatever. 
No sooner did that act pass, than, the evidence 
is perfectly conclusive, the ultra men on both 
sides seized upon it for mischief. The evidence 
is as clear and conclusive as in mathematics it is 
true that two and two are four; that secret socie- 
ties were organized on both sides to violate the 
principles of the Kansas act. What has been 
the consequence? The very worst that could be 
apprehended. At this point let me notice a 
remark of the honorable Senator from Vermont, 
[Mr. CoLLAMER,] who is a member of the Com- 
mittee on Territories. He tells us that tJiese 
facts are conclusive, that the principle of the bill 
is good for nothing where it is tested, and tliat 
the reason why it succeeded in Nebraska, and in 
the other Territories, is because it has not been 
tried. Is that argument sound ? Let me point 
the atttention of that honorable Senator to the 
State of Cahfornia. That State, at the last ac- 
counts, was in the hands of a vigilance commit- 
tee; and is he prepared to say on that evidence 
that the "experiment," as he calls it, of the 
independent States of this Union is a failure ? 
He can say it with equal propriety. The viola- 
tions of a law are not the tests of the wisdom of 
the law. 



Mr. WELLER. I know that the Senator 
does not intend to do injustice to my State; but 
there is no opposition to the law except in the 
county of San Francisco. There has been an 
attempt there at the suspension of the courts and 
the laws; but I beg of him to consider that as a 
local question, which does notextend beyond the 
county of San Francisco. I know of no move- 
ment on the part of the other counties to sub- 
vert the existing authorities or put down the 
laws. A state of things did exist in San Fran- 
cisco which, in the judgment of a majority of 
the people there, justified them in suspending 
the criminal court and taking the law into their 
own hands. That is true. 

Mr. STUART. I did not intend to say any- 
thing disrespectful to the State of California — far 
from it. 1 only alluded to the fact that there was 
an organization called a vigilance committee, 
which at the last advices was too strong for the 
State government in that locality, and to ask the 
Senator from Vermont whether he deems him- 
self at liberty to say, on that account, that the 
experiment (for he calls this Kansas bill an ex- 
periment) of independent States of this Union 
proves to be a failure.' Not at all; and so of the 
Kansas act. What, sir, the idea which lies at 
the very basis of American freedom throughout 
all the States a failure! — the right, and author- 
ity, and the ability of a people to legislate for 
themselves — that is the Kansas-Nebraska act; 
and that is all of it — that a failure ! That prin- 
ciple an experiment which was born, so far as 
this country is concerned, with the Revolution, 
which is so resplendent this day as to command 
the admiration of the civilized world ! 

Now, sir, what law could not be violated? 
What law has not been violated ? You might as 
well say it was an experiment to suppres.s mur- 
der in a community, because murder!3 are suc- 
cessfully committed in violation of law. It is no 
experiment. But what I complain of is, that a 
few fanatical men on both sides have disturbed 
this great Confederacy of States in the most vio- 
lent manner, and as a consequence of that have 
stricken down some of the wisest and best states- 
men in the Union. I have heard with ngret — 
and I have some personal knowledge of my own 
which I learned with regret — in respect to the 
conduct of the late Presiding OtHcer of this body, 
[Mr. Atchison.] I have said to my friends, and 
1 say now, that he has done more injustice, and 
has committed more ingratitude, to his political 
friends, than any other man in this Union. 

This law went into operation. The officers 
were appointed, and an election was held. That 
election never did in its purity meet my judgment; 
but who has executed the mischief? A man, of 
whom our opponents have sought to make a 
martyr. Wipe out the official acts of Governor 
Reeder, and that case stands to-day remediable 
without difficulty. If he had performed his duty 
as he ought to have done it, there never could 
have been a conflict at all. He should have with- 
held the certificates. There is evidence in his 
own record, sent by the President of the United 
States to the House of Representatives, enough 
to have satisfied any Governor with three grains 
of sense that that whole election was irregular. 
He should have withheld the certificates, and 
i issued a new proclamation, and called on the 



3 



President of the United States for aid to protect 
the people of that Territory in the enjoyment of 
the benefits of the act in its very terms given to 
them. Had he done tliat, there would have been 
no mischief about the Kansas act. But through 
fear, or through a desire for fraudulent specula- 
tions on Indian lands, or both, he perverted the 
office which he held, and has complicated this 
subject to such an extent that it is difficult to 
remedy it. Is he censured by our political oppo- 
nents ? Is he held up, and his conduct criticized, 
or, as I have said, is he sought to be made a 
martyr? Is it claimed for him that he stands out 
in bold relief the man of all others to be honored 
by Kansas and the lovers of freedom ? Was there 
ever such inconsistency before ? 

I shall pass as briefly through the history of 
this case as possible; but let me ask, what has 
been said in the Senate, and are those sayings 
legal and proper? It has been said on the floor 
of the Senate this day by the Senatorfrom Maine, 
[Mr. Fessenden] — it has been said here frequently 
by the Senator from New York, [Mr. Seward,] 
now absent, that the people of that Territory are 
justified in resisting the laws. Allow me a mo- 
ment on that subject. I hold the doctrine in re- 
spect to those laws to be this: laws enacted by a 
Legislature elected according to the forms of law, 
and placed upon a statute-book by courts, and by 
executive officers throughout this whole country, 
are to be regarded as binding laws, and it is their 
duty to execute them. It has been decided by 
the highest tribunals in the States and the United 
States, that no court can go behind the law to see 
whether it was fairly passed or not, and no ex- 
ecutive officer called on to execute the law can be 
permitted to determine for himself its validity. 
Then, when Senators on this floor have told the 
people of Kansas from this high place that they 
were justified in resisting those laws, they have 
told them what courts, acting in obedience to laws 
and constitutions, have determined to be criminal 
ever since civilization began. And yet they say 
they are not responsible ! Men stand here in 
their places, and say to the people of Kansas, 
*' These laws have been forced on you by the 
people of Missouri; they are irregular; they are 
of no binding effect, and you are justified in their 
resistance;" and yet they " wash their hands of 
all the evils that exist in Kansas." 

When it comes to a congressional question, in 
my judgment it is quite another affair. The 
authority of Congress put that Territory in a con- 
dition to be organized; and ifCongressare satisfied 
that that organization has been irregular, fraud- 
ulent, and void, they possess the power clearly 
and beyond dispute to right the evil and afford 
a remedy. But, sir, the President of the United 
States and every executive officer, the Supreme 
Court of the United Slates and every judicial offi- 
cer, is bound to regard those laws while they stand , 
as the existing bona fide laws of the Territory, 
and they are to be obeyed. Entertaining these 
views, 1 have been anxious from the commence- 
ment oflhe session of this Congress, that Congress 
should lake up the subject anil furnish a remedy. 
That we have the power is beyond all di.spute. 
I have conversed with my friends, personal and 
political. I have spent, I may say, I hope, with- 
out egotism, anxious days and nights upon this 
matter. I have felt its importance. I have urged 



I men to adopt something as a remedy — a peaceful 
remedy, and I have implored them to refrain from 
I these exciting debates. Now, we come to the 
! remedy. Two propositions are presented, and 
i they seem to be the ultimatums. One is presented 
I by the majority of this body, which proposes to 
j have a full, free, fair vote of the people in that 
i Territory. The other proposes to admit iheTer- 
j ritory as a State upon a constitution made with- 
j out law, from its inception to its end, and made 
I confessedly by a part only, and a small part, of 
I the people of the Territory. In this connection 
I I want the Senator from Ohio to illustrate a re- 
I mark which he made to-day, and tell me what 
j single circumstance there is in the whole history 
1 of tiie Kansas-Topeka constitution, and the hia- 
: tory of the constitution of Michigan, which he 
claims lobe similar? I tell him frankly thai I do 
not know of any one, and I shall be glad if he 
will point out to me what one is so. 

Mr. WADE. I have not the proceedings of 
the Michigan convention before me at the present 
time, but I know that there was a difficulty ex- 
isting between the General Government and ihe 
Territory of Michigan, with regard to the boun- 
dary between Michigan and Ohio, and I know 
that during that controversy they formed a con- 
stitution without any application to the Federal 
Government. There was no proposition made 
and no power granted, but they organized a con- 
vention, made a constitution, and were admitted 
upon it. I believe that so far the cases are alike. 
Mr. STUART. If the Senate will indulge me 
for a few moments, I propose to show that there 
is not one single circumstance that attaches to 
Kansas, from the beginning to the end, which is 
similar to any circumstance in the admission of 
Michigan into the Union. If there is any, I shall 
be most happy to be corrected; but this matter 
has been so often alluded to, and alluded to after 
remarks by my able colleague, thai 1 shall un- 
dertake 10 show there is not a single circumstance 
of similarity between the cases. 

Mr. WADE. Let me ask the Senator if they 
are not similar in this: there was a Territorial Le- 
gislature there at the time the people of Michigein 
formed their constitution, bul it was done with- 
out the sanction of thai Legislature. It was en- 
tirely a movement of ihe people themselves, and 
they made no application to Congress until they 
presented their constitution. 
Mr. STUART. Not at all. 
Mr. WADE. Am I not right? 
Mr. STUART. Not at all. If the Senator 
will hearme, I will show him ihai he is mistaken 
in every particular. In the first place, the ordi- 
nance of 1787 authorized a certain nuaiber of 
States to be formed out of the Northwestern Ter- 
ritory, and authorized their admission into the 
Union whenever they should have sixty thousand 
inhabitants. Acting upon that authority, the 
Territorial Legislature of Michigan, after we had 
that number of inhabitants and more, passed a 
law to enable the people to elect delegates to a 
Stale convention to form a State consiitution. 
Those delegates were elected, and they formed a 
Stale constitution, and submitted the adoption of 
it to the peo[)le of the Territory, and ihe people 
adopted the constitulion. They elected a Legis- 
lature under il,and they elected iheir Senators to 
Congress. The people elected a Represeniativo 



to the other House. They came here, and de- 
manded admission into the Union. AH this was 
done in virtue of the territorial hiws of Michigan, 
acting in virtue of the ordinance of 1787. When 
they came here, Ohio disputed the southern 
boundary. That boundary inckided the mouth 
of the Maumee river. It had, up to that time, 
been within the jurisdiction of the Territory of I 
Michigan. It had not been within the jurisdic-j 
tion of Ohio. All the officers, township and 
county, justices of the peace, and all others, were j 
Michigan officers down to the southern boundary j 
which we claimed; but Ohio claimed a right to I 
that portion of the Territory. Congress took up I 
the subject, and determined that Michigan should L 
release that boundary, and carry it ten miles ' 
further north, as a condition of being admitted 
into the Union; and they determined that that 
consent should be given by " a convention of the 
people." That is the language of the law of 
Congress. They did not say how that conven- 
tion should be called. They did not say that it 
should be called by the Legislature. They did 
not say that there should be legislative consent; 
but they said a convention of the people of Mich- 
igan should consent to that boundary. The Le- 
gislature afterwards called a convention, and that 
convention rejected the proposition. The people 
then took up the subject themselves, and they 
called a convention. That convention accepted 
the proposition, and that acceptance was sent to 
the President of the United States. He trans- 
mitted it to Congress; and Congress, after full 
debate, decided that that acceptance was within 
the terms of its own law. Therefore, you see, j 
sir, that there was not a movement in Michigan, ! 
from the beginning to the end, that was not in I 
accordance with the provisions of a law, either j 
of the Territory or of Congress, or of both. Now, i 
here is the Topeka constitution, formed through- { 
out without law from its inception to its end, ad- i 
mittedly by its friends, and yet it is said to be a 
parallel case to Michigan. I submit that there is 
not a single circumstance, from its commence-' 
ment to its end, that is parallel; and I hope; 
(although I confess that I have no ground to hope, \ 
from past experience) that it will not be asserted, j 
at least here again, that the case of Kansas and ] 
the case of Michigan are parallel. I 

Mr. President, how has this question been ] 
treated? I am not going over the ground which j 
has been occupied by the Senator from Georgia ,] 
and others, so ably and, in my judgment, so ' 
conclusively; but I am going to call the attention 
of the gentlemen opposed to me politically, on \\ 
this floor, to a fev/ of their own acts, and to i 
ask them how they explain them. I called the ! 
attention of the Senator from New Hampshire,' 
[Mr. Hale,] — who, having got through with 
his speech to-day, has left us— to the fact that, ; 
notwilhyiauding his assertion that he had never ^ 
given a vote I'or the Missouri compromise line, 
because it infereutially admitted slavery south ; 
of it, — I called Ins attention to the fact that he i 
voted for it yesterday, and he voted tor it a j 
few mornings ago, at the close of the sittings ! 
on the original bills, emanating from the Senator 
from Georgia. In order that that vote may not 
be misapprehended, let me state a little of its : 
history. The honorable Senator from Vermont, 
[Mr. CoLLAMER,] representing a minority of the i 



Committee on Territories, in a speech yesterday, 
reiterated his remedy. He said the evils under 
which we were suffering this day grew out of 
the repeal of the Missouri compromise; that the 
remedy therefor was to restore the Missouri 
compromise; and, as a finale to his doctrine, 
thus explained to the Senate, he presented his 
amendment to restore the Missouri compromise, 
word for word, and every one of the twelve Sen- 
ators on the other side voted for it; and yet they 
say they have been always opposed to the Mis- 
souri restriction because it inferentially admitted 
slavery south of it. 

Another thing, sir. A principal plank in their 
platform — one which I contended against in 1854, 
as I shall ever contend against it, because it is in 
the very teeth of the Constitution of the United 
States — is opposition to the reclamation of fugitive 
slaves, and I think nearly every man of them has 
declared himself ready to do anythings to suffer 
anything, rather than go for that. Yet, in this 
very same amendment, every man of them voted 
for it. Here it is; I will give the language very 
nearly, for it is too dark to read it now: " Pro- 
vided, that any person owing service or labor, and 
escaping into that Territory, shall be reclaimed 
by his owner, or the person to whom the service 
is due, and reclaimed according to law." That is 
the language of the amendment, and every man 
of them voted for it. Now, sir, when you re- 
claim a fugitive from service according to law — 
when you lawfully reclaim him, you reclaim him 
under existing laws. If that bill should pass into 
a law with this amendment in it, the fugitive 
slave law of 1850 would be the law under which 
you would reclaim him, and the only law. When 
a legislative body says that an individual or a 
people may do a thing lawfully, it is saying they 
may do it according to existing laios at the time it is 
done. This shows how far party tactics will 
lead party men. It was only necessary that one 
of that side should offer an amendment, for every 
man to vote for it, no matter what it contained. 

Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire.' Will the 
Senator from Alichigan permit me to ask him a 
question ? 

Mr. STUART. Certainly. 

Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. I ask him 
on what ground he assumes — I speak for myself 
and for many other gentlemen who voted with 
me — that we are opposed to the reclamation of 
fugitive slaves .' 

Mr. WELLER. You are in favor of it, and 
voted for it. 

Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. But the 
Senator from Michigan says we are opposed to 
it; and he says that every one of us has declared 
ourselves opposed to the reclamation of fugitive 
slaves. I ask him what warrant he has for that 
statement? 

Mr. STUART. I siy that the principal plank 
in the platform of the Republican party is the 
repeal of the fugitive slave law. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. There is no such thing in it. 

Mr. STUART. I am not talking of the last 
one which you made. I am talking of the one 
on which you fought the battle of 1854, in oppo- 
sition to the Kansas act; and that was the repeal 
of the fugitive slave law, and the admission of 
no more slave States. That is the ground I op- 
posed then. I took the stump throughout the 



State in which I live, against that ground, as 
being in open violation of the plainest language 
of the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr, DOUGLAS. If the Senator will allow me, 
I will state that the platform distinctly put forth 
in every part of Illinois before, and I presume no 
one will deny it, was this: No more slave States; 
the repeal of the fugitive slave law; the prohibi- 
tion of slavery in all the Territories; the abolition 
of slavery in the District of Columbia; the aboli- 
tion of the slave trade between the States; — and 
each candidate was required to pledge himself to 
each one of the measures in every convention in 
our State. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator from 
Michigan allow me to say one word here? 

Mr. STUART. Certainly. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I wish to say, in reply to 
what my colleague has said, that I ran for Con- 
gress in one of the congressional districts of Illi- 
nois, that no such platform was adopted, and no 
such ground was taken by me. I ran in opposi- 
tion to the Nebraska bill. No such ground was 
avowed, as my colleague states. No State con- 
vention in Illinois ever put forth such ground. 
County meetings may have put it forth; but it 
never was the doctrine of the anti-Nebraska 
party of Illinois. He cannot show a resolution 
of the district in which I live, putting it forth; and 
I never heard of such ground being assumed. I 
have always disavowed it. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish the Senate to notice, 
that up to the middle of the session my colleague 
averred that he was a Democrat, and denied any 
association with Republicans, or responsibility 
for their platform; but in the State anti-Nebraska 
platform at Springfield, they took the ground I 
stated; in the Galena district they put forth that 
platform; and in each of those other districts they 

Eut it forth. In the district from which my col- 
iague came, it was necessary to cheat the people 
by denying that they belonged to the Republican 



■"iZ: 



Ir. TRUMBULL. Does the Senator mean 
to say that an anti-Nebraska convention ever 
assembled in the State of Illinois in 1854? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. At Springfield ? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I never heard of it. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. My colleague was present 
in town, and I saw him. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I never knew of any such 
thing, but my colleague seems to have been there ! 
I was not. No convention ever did assemble of 
the anti-Nebraska party generally at Springfield, 
during that canvass. I do not know what indi- 
viduals may have done, but no such convention 
ever assembled there. T know my colleague is 
very much in the liabit of talking of Abolitionists 
and Black Republicans, and of Maine law men, 
and of putting them all together, and charging 
them all to be the same thing. I did say that I was 
attached to no party at the present session of 
Congress; that I had always been a Democrat. I 
ajn so still, and expect to continue so; and I be- 
lieve I shall be so in sustaining Colonel Fremont 
for the Presidency. He is a very much better 
Democrat, in my opinion, than the candidate 
whom my colleague sustains. But I do not wish 
it to go forth to the country that any such plat- 



form was ever adopted by the anti-Nebraska 
party, as the Senator states; and I say to him 
that he cannot produce the action of an anti-Ne- 
braska convention that ever assembled at Spring- 
afield, putting forth such doctrines as he states 
\ here. I do not say that he may not find individ- 
luals who sustain those doctrines; but lam speak- 
' ing of a general State convention. I have some 
1 knowledge of the general proceedings in Illinois, 
and I know that no such meetings were ever 
held, and no delegates were sent from my part 
of the State to any such convention. 
I Mr. DOUGLAS. I know such was the case 
in the Galena district — the first district. I know 
that it was the case in the Chicago district — the 
second district. I know that it was the case in 
the Bloomington district — the third. I know 
that it was the issue in the fourth district — Mr. 
Knox's. 1 know that the same issue was made on 
Colonel Richardson in the fifth district, and on 
Major Harris in the sixth. I was not in the other 
districts during the campaign. But I do know 
that, during the State fair at Springfield in Octo- 
ber in that year, an anti-Nebraska convention 
was held, and notice of it was published for weeks 
previous. We had a Democratic meeting during 
the same week. I know that when Mr. Lincoln 
concluded his speech in the State-house against 
me, and I rose to reply, Mr. Lovejoy, one of the 
Abolition candidates for Congress now, stepped 
on the stand and announced that the anti-Nebras- 
ka State convention would meet immediately in 
the Senate Chamber. I know that my colleague 
was present in the town at the time. I know that 
that was a regular Abolition convention, for the 
repeal of the fugitive slave law, the prohibition 
of slavery in the District of Columbia, the pro- 
hibition of the slave trade between the States, 
and the admission of no more slave States into 
' the Union. I know that that was announced as 
■ an anti-Nebraska State convention, and was pub- 
lished for weeks previous. I know that my col- 
league denied belonging to it at that time, and 
never was admitted into the party until about 
three weeks ago, and therefore is not good 
i authority on that point. 

] Mr. STUART. Mr. President, I intended to 
confine my remarks to the subject under consider- 
ation, and I have indulged my friends from Illi- 
nois v/ith a great deal of good feeling, but I am 
I a little afraid that they will get out of order if I 
, permit them to go any further, and I want to 
' reply to the Senatorfrom New Hampshire. I saw 
that he did not understand the points that I made, 
and as I have light now, (the chandeliers having 
been lighted,) 1 can make it out perhaps more 
distinctly. Yesterday these proceediags occurred: 
" Mr. CoLLAMER. I offer the following amendment as an 
I additional section ; on which I ask for the yeas and nays : 
j " ^nrf be it further enacted, That in all thai territory ceded 
I by France to the United Slates, under the name of Lonisi- 
ana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, and not in- 
cluded within the State of Missouri, slavery and involun- 
j tary servitude, otherwise than in punishment for crimes 
I whereof ihe party shall have been duly convicted, shall be 
I and is hereby forever prohibited : Provided always. That 
j any person escaping into the same, from whom lauor or ser- 
vice is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the 
United Slates, such fugitive maybe lawfully reclaimed and 
I conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or seivice 
I as aforesaid." 



6 



My point is that this langua|je, declaring " such 
fugitive maybe lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed , 
to the person claiming his or her labor or service | 
as aforesaid," means, " may be reclaimed under ! 
existing laws, and conveyed to the owner under j 
those laws;" and hence I said, that if this amend- 1 
ment had been adopted, and the bill passed into ' 
a law, and a person claiming such an individual 
should go into the Territory to reclaim him to 
service, he must proceed under the existing fugi- 
tive slave law, and consequently every man who 
voted for that amendment voted to indorse the 
fugitive slave law as it stands, because it says 
" may be lawfully reclaimed," and there is no i 
other law but that. 

Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. Will the [ 
Senator from Michigan permit me for a moment? i 
I think he did not understand me. I understood j 
him to make an assertion that the whole twelve | 
Senators who voted in the negative on the Kan- j 
sas bill, when it was pending before the Senate, i 
■were opposed, and had all declared themselves! 
opposed, to the execution of the fugitive slave i 
law. The inquiry I made was, what warrant he ! 
had for that assertion .•' I was not aware, as far 
as 1 was concerned myself, of having given any i 
authority to any man to make that statement in 
respect to me; and in respect to many men who ' 
appear here in the Opposition, I suppose the same ! 
remark holds true. I think the statement of the j 
Senator was too sweeping and comprehensive, j 
and he can find no authority for making it. j 

Mr. STUART. The Senator will allow me to 
ask him, then, is he in favor of the execution of 
the fugitive slave law .' 

Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. I do not now 
hold, and have never avowed, that there is any- 
thing in the law against its execution. 

Mr. STUART. What is the Senator's view 
of it? ll 

Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. I sustained i| 
the compromise measures of 1850, and always j 
supported them as long as they were upheld by j 
others — every part and parcel of th^m; not be- | 
cause I approved them all, but becaust I deemed \i 
tliem the lesser of many evils. Befoio Senators i 
undertake to represent the opinions of other gen- j 
ilemen standing here, I think it is well enough : 
for them to advise themselves a little as to whether I 
their statements on that subject are not altogether j 
too comprehensive and sweeping. l| 

Mr. STUART. The honorable Senator has! 
misapprehended me altogether in one particular. ! 
I wish to ask him now, whether he is in favor of 
the present fugitive slave law, and against its : 
repeal ? | j 

Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. That is an- ' 
other poiiit. I may be in favor of the repeal of a ^ 
law; but as long as it stands as a law on the stat- 
ute-book of the United States it must be enforced. 
I have already stated to the Senate that I favored j 
it originally merely as a choice of evils; and when 
the question of its repeal is presented, I may go 
against the continued existence of that law. That 
is another point. I think it is a departure from 
the question as made l\ 

Mr. STUART. Now I will state what I said, ! 
and the Senator will see that he misunderstood me. ' 
I did not say that every one of the twelve Senators 
who voted for this amendment was opposed to 
the execution of that law. I stated that the i. 



principal plank of their platform in my country 
in 1854 was the repeal of that law, and that every 
man of them here voted for it; but I did not state 
anything about their opinions. The opinions of 
some of them I knew, for I had heard them ex- 
pressed on this floor. I think the honorable Sen- 
ator from Ohio has presented instructions from 
his State Legislature at this session for the repeal 
of that law. 

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; and I voted for it two 
or three times. 

Mr. STUART. I think the State of Massa- 
chusetts has presented similar resolutions for the 
repeal of the law, and I think the repeal of the 
law is an element in the Republican organization; 
but yet every Senator here claiming to belong to 
that organization has voted by this amendment 
to reclaim fugitives in Kansas under and by vir- 
tue of this law. 

Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate but a. 
few minutes longer in considering this proposi- 
tion. I have said enough already to show that 
the proposition embodied in the bill which haa 
passed the Senate, did not meet all that I desired 
individually. My fellow-Senators very generally 
know that; but I have been long enough in life to 
learn that a man in a deliberative body can have 
nothing precisely as he wants it. He must yield 
something to the opinions and wishes of others. 
It is presented, therefore, in the existing excited 
condition of the country, and in the lamentable 
condition of Kansas, as the only remedy that it 
is possible to pass. And how is it objected to? 
Every Senator who has spoken on the other side 
has acknowledged that upon its face it is a good 
bill, and that, if it could be carried out according 
to its own terms and provisions, it would execute 
a good purpose — it would heal the difficulties in 
Kansas, and reduce things to order and harmony 
throughout the country. Now, I say to my hon- 
orable friends here — opponents, as well as those 
who think with me — that whenever any man 
ventures opposition to a bill on the ground that 
it is to be dishonestly executed, it is an argument 
which subverts the foundatioii of all law. Hu- 
man ingenuity cannot pass a law which is to be 
effective, if it is not to be honestly and completely 
executed. If you assume that the courts of the 
country, the President, and the executive officers 
of the country, will not execute your laws, then 
you may abandon legislation upon this, and upon 
all other subjects. I go for this bill upon the be- 
lief and upon the expectation that, like all other 
laws, it will be honestly executed and carried 
out; and the surrounding circumstances of the 
country, so far from permitting me to leave them 
as they are, urge me to forego the personal wishes 
which my friends know 1 had in respect to some 
amendments to that bill, and to give it my hearty 
and my full support. 

Now, sir, let nie say a word to the honorable 
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] in respect 
to his amendment against which I voted. He has 
heard me state to-day that 1 did not vote against 
it because I thought the Legislature of Kansas 
was fairly organized; but he proposed by that 
amendment to sweep out all law in that Territory, 
and to leave nothing but anarchy; and 1 was 
amazed to hear his response to the honorable 
Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Pugh.] When that 
Senator asked him if the bill was defective, as ho 



insisted it was, for the preservation of peace from 
this time until that convention should sit and de- 
cide whether it would come into the Union to 
propose amendments, his answer was, that his 

f)roposition for peace to Kansas was to repeal all 
aws and all legislative bodies. That I may not 
be mistaken about that, let me read what those 
two Senators said: 

** Mr. PnoH. It was suggested by the Senator from Ver- 
mont, and reiterated by the Senator from New Hampshire, 
tliat there was no provision in the amendment reported by 
tlie committee to protect the persons who have been driven, 
as they say, out ol' the Territory, by violence, after tlieir re- 
turn. 1 think it is sufficiently covered ; but I invite those 
Senators, or any of their colleagues, to propose any amend- 
ment which will more effectually protect persons and prop- 
erty in the Territory, and especially the persons who have 
been driven out ; and, for one, I shall vote for it, as I have 
no doubt a majority of those who support the bill of the 
committee will do. 

" Mr. TRUMBcr.L. I just offered a proposition which I 
thought would accomplish that by getting rid of the usurp- 
ers in the Territory who were and are oppressing these 
people ; but it met with no favor." 

Let me read the proposition of the Senator 
from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull:] 

"^nd he it further enacted, That all the acts and proceed- 
ings of any body of men heretofore assembled in the Terri- 
tory of Kansas, and claiming to be a Legislative Assembly 
thereof, with power and authority to pass laws for the gov- 
ernment of said Territory, -are hereby declared to be utterly 
null and void and no person shall exercise any power or 
jurisdiction, or hold any office under, or by virtue of author- 
ity derived from such Legislative Assembly ; nor shall the 
members thereof have or exercise any authority as such." 

That, the Senator from Illinois answers the 
Senator from Ohio, is his remedy to protect the 
people now in theTerritory of Kansa.s — to protect 
those men who have been driven out, and who 
may go back up to the time of the election. Did 
ever any mortal man hear of a remedy like that.' 

As I have said, I am not going over ground 
that has been so ably occupied by others; but a 
suggestion was made by the Senator from Illinois 
to the Senator from Maine, when he was inter- 
rogating my friend from Ohio, in respect to the 
repealing section of the present bill. It was asked 
(upon tiie suggestion of tha^ being untrue, as I 
thought, because he was talking to the Senator 
from Maine at the time; but, if I am mistaken, I 
can be corrected) wiiether it was claimed that 
the law which was a test for a practicing attorney 
was against the terms of the original Kansas act? 
and it was considered, I think, with some tri- 
umph, that there was a law which was reached 
by the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, 
which did not conflict with the terms of the ori- 
ginal Kansas act. I have always found that, when 
a man was prompted, he generally made a mis- 
take. I say it is in conflict with that act, and 
with the Constitution of the United States, pal- 
pably. What is the business of a lawyer by 
profession? It is to defend men who are arraigned 
lor crime — men who are prosecuted for a libel, or 
for anything else — and to defend them with the 
Utmost freedom of speech. Suppose a man pros- 
ecuted in that Territory for an infringement of 
the fugitive slave law. His counsel's mouth is 
closed by that law of the Territory against argu- 
ing to a court that it is an unconstitutional law. 



He is sworn to support it; and would he be 
supporting a law against the constitutionality of 
which he was arguing? I say, it is in conflict 
both with the organic act and the Constitution of 
the United States; and there is not a law reached 
by the amendment of the Senator .from Missouri 
that does not conflict with that provision of the 
organic act which declares that that people shall 
be perfectly free to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way. Free- 
dom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of 
speech of counsel, freedom of opinion in jurymen, 
all are indispensable to leave a people perfectly 
free to form the institutions which are to exist, 
and under which they are to come into the United 
States Confederacy. It was, therefore, proper; 
and the suggestion which was made constitutes 
no exception to the general rule — none what- 
ever. 

I regret that the honorable Senator from New 
York is not here; but when the resolution of the 
Senator from Kentucky was under consideration, 
he made a remark in respect to me that I thought 
i entirely unfounded, and exceedingly unkind. 
He asserted here in the Senate that I had avowed 
myself in favor of doing nothing for the people 
of Kansas Territory. I ask, has any man who 
advocates the Topeka constitution done anything 
for the purpose of healing dissensions and calm- 
ing the difficulties in die Territory of Kansas? 
If there is one of those Senators on this floor who 
can rise and say he has made a speech for that 
object — that he has made a speech with that de- 
sign — to allay strife in Kansas — to allay conten- 
tion and ili-feeling in the Union, let him rise and 
point me to that speech. On the contrary, it has 
been, so far as I have heard — and I have been 
here every day but one — a series of attacks on 
the Administration, upon the Democratic party, 
and in too many instances the people of that 
Territory have been told that they were justified 
in resisting the laws. Then we are presented 
from that side of the House with no remedy ex- 
cept the Topeka constitution. The arguments 
of Senators who have preceded me on that sub- 
ject are so conclusive to my mind — they are such 
as struck me in the outset, that I do not wish to 
add a word on that subject. I have not another 
word to say in respect to the bill which has passed 
the Senate, and which is under consideration, ex- 
cept this: it is asked what use is it to publish that 
bill? Why, sir, I can furnish an incident whicli 
ought to be conclusive in the mind of every man 
for publishing il. No longer ago than the last con- 
gressional election in Michigan, a distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Ohio, the present 
chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means 
of the House of Representatives, came to my 
town and made a speech, in which he took up the 
Kansas act, and commented on that part of it 
which is the language of the ordinance of 1787, 
respecting the organization of the Territory, the 
enumerating of the inhabitants, the proclamation 
of the Governor, and the election, which is ver- 
batim the language of the ordinance of 1787, and 
verbatim the language of every territorial act that 
has ever been passed. He took it up, and de- 
clared the whole of it an outrage such as had 
never been perpetrated upon the people of the 
country before ! To cap the climax of his speech, 
the gentleman from Ohio declared that a citizen 



8 



HHMHIli 

016 089 351 5 



of South Carolina — yes, sir, a citizen of South 
Carohna — W£i3 the Governor of Kansas, chosen 
and selected by the pro-slavery Democracy, as 
he said, to carry out the design of making 
Kansas a slave State. When I replied to him 
a few evenings afterwards, and stated the fact, 
that no gentleman from South Carolina was the 
Governor of Kansas, an eminent Republican of 
Detroit jumps up in meeting and asks me who 
was; and when I told him Mr. Reeder, of Penn- 
sylvania, he seemed amazed. That was a per- 
version in respect to the act, and in respect to the 
officers of the country, which shows you the ne- 
cessity of spreading this bill far and wide before 
the people. 

I have faith, sir, to believe that the conserv- 
ative Constitution -loving people of the northern 
States will look upon this bill, see that it is fair, 
and that it furnishes a means of relief. I wish it 
spread before their eyes. Before that people I 
expect to go to meet this issue and abide its results . 
My fate is linked with theirs. They are lovers 
of the country and supporters of the Constitution, 
and sooner or later they will come to the conclu- 
sion to stand by the Constitution, and oppose all 
parties that are for disregarding and contemning 
its fundamental principles, destroying its founda- 



tions, and dissolving this Union, which alone 
can preserve our greatness, prosperity, and hap- 
piness. 

The Senator from Massachusetts says that 
when his party have got a majority in the House 
of Representatives, a majority in the Senate, 
and Fremont elected President, they are going 
to abolish slavery in Kansas. Well, sir, I can 
think of no argument that is proper to meet that 
except the old maxim that " when the skies fall 
we shall catch larks. " That is so improbable an 
event, that I cannot conceive that it is put forward 
by the Senator here as an argument based upon 
reasonable expectation, but rather as a mere flour- 
ish with which to close a sentence. 

Mr. President, I shall now leave this subject, 
in the hope that every vote I have given on it 
during this Congress, and every one which I may 
be called upon to give hereafter, will be fully ex- 
plained by the views which I have now sub- 
mitted. It was the only purpose which I had in 
rising, and it is one which I should not have exe- 
cuted now but for the fact that we had spent more 
than six hours of the day, and put it out of our 
power to do any other business, in considering 
the question whether we should print twenty thou- 
sand extra copies of this bill. 



Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. 



LIBRAR> 








HBRARY OF 



CONGRESS 





016 089 351 5 



